Kerala

Kollam

CC/06/278

G.Mohanan Pillai, Elanjikkal Padinjattathil - Complainant(s)

Versus

President, Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank(FSCB) - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2009

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/278

G.Mohanan Pillai, Elanjikkal Padinjattathil
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

President, Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank(FSCB)
Secretary, farmers Service Co-Operative bank(FSCB), Thevalakkara
Sree Sakthi LPG Ltd., Venus Plaza, Begam Pet
Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

 

            The complaint is filed for refund of security deposit and for getting Rs.15,000/- as compensation and cost.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

 

          The complainant availed cooking gas connection from Neethi Store conducted by 1st and 2nd opp.parties.  1st and 2nd opp.parties collected total Rs.7500/- for two Gas cylinders , one regulator, Gas stove with two  burner and Rubber tube.  Gas cylinders and regulator were returned to the 1st and 2nd opp.parties as those  were not under use of the complainant.   The complainant applied for refund of the amount deposited  except  the price of gas stove and rubber tube.   The opp.parties refund his application.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief.

 

          The opp.parties  1 , 2 and 4th opp.parties filed separate versions.

          1st and 2nd opp.party have stated in their version that they were not liable to give security deposit of compensation to the complainant.   The complainant had not given 7500/- as security deposit to the 1st and 2nd opp.parties.   3rd and 4th opp.parties are supplying filled cooking gas to the consumers and they were liable to give back  the amount.  1st and 2nd opp.parties were  not at all parties to the said contract.   The complainant had not give back 2 gas cylinder and regulator or demanded refund of deposit.   There was no such monetary relationship between the complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2.   The complainant has not authority to claim against 1st and 2nd opp.parties.

 

          4th opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   As consumer fed is not a public company dealing with petroleum products it had to depend upon pvt. Gas  companies for purchase of Bulk Gas.   Subsidy was not granted to the 4th opp.party by Government of India.   Consumer fed would not sell cooking gas at the  public for which other companies were selling cooking gas because of this reason.  The 4th opp.party entered into a contract with Sakthi LPG agency but  later on they have backed out from the contract.   An arbitration case was  filed by the 1st opp.party against Sakthi LPG Agency.   The Consumer fed  appropriated only Rs.150/- and Rs.5500/- was given to the Sakthi LPG.  Consumer fed sustained heavy loss of many crores of rupees as they were forced to open a new plant and had to purchase new cylinders and regulators.  There is no unfair trade practice  or deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.  3rd opp.party is to  be penalized.  3rd opp.party has not filed version.

 

          The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party.

2. Compensation and cost.

 

          The complainant filed affidavit, Ext.P1 to P3 were marked.  PW.1 examined.  From the side of opp.parties opp.party 1 and 2 filed affidavit.  No oral evidence adduced by the opp.party 4

 

          There is lno dispute that the complainant is a consumer of opp.parties.   The allegation of the complainant is that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.  The  application of the complainant to refund the security deposit as he is not interested to continue as a consumer was refused by the opp.parties.  Though  opp.parties would content in their version that there is no deficiency in service, no evidence  was adduced to establish that contention.   Therefore  the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unimpeached.  In these circumstances we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.

          We have perused the documents carefully and find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. The points found accordingly.

 

          In the result the complaint is allowed.   The 4th opp.party is directed to refund the advance deposit Rs.5500/- after canceling LPG connection of opp.parties and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost.   The complainant will return the cylinder and regulator to the 4th opp.party on getting refund of the security deposit.

 

          The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.

 

            Dated this the 31st day of July, 2001.

 

                                                                                   :

I N D E X

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Gas receipt

P2. – Connection certificate

P3. - Application